Mr.
Willis: From my point of view, and, I am sure, my
partys, the idea of giving trained police officers discretion
is good. We need to have confidence in our
officers ability to exercise their judgment, so I applaud that
idea. However, fixed penalty notices have now been in operation since
the 2001 Act, and what evidence is there that they affect behaviour? I
recognise that if an offence is committed and somebody gets a penalty
notice, there is a penalty for the alleged crime or crime that has
taken place, but the issue is about affecting behaviour. Since 2001,
has the Home Office collected any statistics to show that the course of
action, of which the Minister is obviously convinced, will
work?
Maria
Eagle: The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question about
Home Office research, but, as I am not a Home Office Minister, I shall
have to come back to him on that.
Mr.
Willis: The Home Office provides the evidence
to you.
Maria
Eagle: I hope that the Home Office is listening, and that
it will do so. I shall try to come back to the hon. Gentleman, if not
during the debate, then afterwards.
The reason
why I am convinced of the measure is that, in the past, there has been
no escalation from the warning, which is an administrative process, to
a prosecution. An escalationa step upsends a clear
signal that, the first time, one might get off with a warning, the
second time, there is effectively a fine, but the third time, if one is
caught again, one can expect to be reported to the courts, with all its
potential consequences. That is a clear signal to the individual, but
remember, we are talking about an individual who is caught in
possession for personal use, not about more serious offences.
The hon.
Member for Crewe and Nantwich asked a specific question, namely, what
if possession was one item on a list of other potential crimes that the
officer perceived when he found the individual? It would very much be
for the officer to decide whether the other offences that he perceived,
and that the individual might have committed, were worth arresting the
individual for; certainly, however, other law-breaking that was related
to the possession would represent an aggravated feature, and one would
not necessarily expect the officer to deem a PND appropriate in those
circumstances. It would be a matter for the professional judgment of
the police officer in the circumstances in which they found themselves,
but one would not expect a series of offences that related to, and
included, possession to be dealt with by issuing a PND for one
offence.
Opposition
Members have bandied about allegations that politics is being played.
[Interruption.] It is an outrageous suggestion.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate suggested that the Government
sought to talk tough but were being soft, whereas the hon. Member for
Harrogate and Knaresborough suggested that the Government were being
too tough. From the Government Benches, where I sit, it is interesting
to note the politics being played by both Opposition parties. They have
different perspectives on whether cannabis possession or use should
even be illegal, but they have alighted upon the same view of the
order. Far be it from me to suggest that the Opposition parties are
playing politics, but it is interesting that they have both come
to the view that the order is bad, but from completely
different sides of the spectrum. One thinks that cannabis use should be
legalised, and the other thinks that every
year
Mr.
Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. May I
make it absolutely clear that I have not saidthe record will
show thisthat there should be no penalties at all for cannabis,
or that it should not be
classified?
The
Chairman: That is not a point of order for the
Chair.
Maria
Eagle: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman said
that, Mr. Illsley. I was, perhaps, traducing his
partys position on this issue. None the less, I find it
interesting that the Opposition parties come from completely opposite
ends of the spectrum, but have come to exactly the same conclusion
about the orderone because it thinks it too tough, and the
other because it thinks it too
soft. I
assure hon. Members that the police have told us, via ACPO, that what
we propose will give them an extra weapon in their armoury to deal with
individuals who get involved in the possession and use of cannabis. We
have shown that we accept that is a serious issue by reclassifying
cannabis to class B. The measure will enable us to send a much stronger
signal about societys views on the possession of cannabis. I
accept that a penalty notice for disorder is not, by itself, the
toughest of penalties, but if one views it as part of an escalating set
of consequences to repeat offending, it can be seen as
sensible. The
hon. Gentleman suggested that there is no evidence or research behind
the order. He accepted that the Government are well-intentioned, for
which I thank him, and he suggested that the order is a political move
to appease the public, which I refute. This is not about suggesting to
the public that the Government are tougher than they are; it is about
toughening the current regime and sending a clear signal to those who
are caught in possession that that is not something they should repeat.
The escalation of consequences sends that signal
strongly. I
have dealt with the point about whether fines are paid. I have also
dealt with the point that several hon. Members made about whether the
regime applies to under-18s by making it clear that it does not. I
accept that matters are dealt with slightly differently in some
devolved Administrations that have competence for criminal justice. It
is entirely up to them whether they introduce a similar escalating set
of consequences for the possession of cannabis on the street. It
remains to be seen what, if anything, they
do. On
other drugs, I have made it clear that for a penalty notice for
disorder to be used, it must be clear to the officer on the spot what
substance the individual is in possession of. That would present
difficulties with substances in powder or tablet forms, as there would
have to be further investigation to establish what they are. For that
reason, the Government have no plans to extend the use of
penalty notices for disorder to other types of drug offence. Several
Opposition Members have asked about that.
I hope that I
have dealt with[Interruption.] I have obviously missed
something.
Mr.
Burrowes: The Minister did not inspire much confidence by
talking about the first strike in terms of its hit and missthat
is not the kind of strike that I would have much confidence in. Perhaps
the operation of the PentiP computer system will provide some
assurance. Will the Minister clarify exactly when that will become
operational?
Maria
Eagle: I am informed that it will be available from 2010
for cannabis warnings and PNDs, so there will be some capacity across
the board to ensure that such things are properly recorded. Clearly,
any escalation from one step to another requires the capacity to record
properly, otherwise it will not work as well as one would
hope.
The hon.
Member for Kettering asked me about numbers of prosecutions. My
understanding is that during 2007, as set out in the impact assessment,
there were 80,000 cannabis warnings issued, 4,910 arrests, 2,440
cautions given, 2,560 proceeded against, 780 trials in the magistrates
courts, 60,000 trials in the Crown courts, and 2,340 sentenced. That
gives some indication of the numbers, which is all that I can provide
at present, but if he wants any more information I am happy to get it
for him outside the Committee.
I hope that I
have dealt with most of the points. I understand that the Opposition
parties are not happy, for various reasons, about the order, but I hope
that I have managed to convince those on my own side at least that they
should support the Government in respect of the order.
Question
put:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
(Amendment) Order
2009. 10.8
am Committee
rose.
|